(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.10 2016가단5089116

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.10 2016가단5089116

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is one of the real estate listed in attached Table 1 from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2018, from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant building”), leased the part (A) part of 18.48 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant store”) connected each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among them, to the Defendant around April 2007, around KRW 10 million and KRW 8 million in monthly rent.

B. The lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is still renewed, but the lease agreement was concluded on March 31, 2014 with the lease term of 2 years, deposit amount of 20 million won, and monthly rent of 1.5 million won.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

B. On March 7, 2016, the date of expiration of the instant lease agreement entered into a premium agreement with C on the condition that the Plaintiff will transfer all of the rights (facilities) of the instant store to C for the premium of KRW 150 million, and notified the Plaintiff on March 9, 2016.

On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff refused to enter into a lease agreement with C on the ground that the instant building was repaired and the Plaintiff would have been able to keep his/her relocation in the instant store.

E. Even after the expiration of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant paid the rent by December 2017, and has been occupying the instant store and continuing its business until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit, the instant lease contract was terminated on March 31, 2016 due to the expiration of the period, and thus, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff at the same time after deducting the amount remaining after deducting the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the deposit of KRW 20 million.

However, the defendant's obligation to return the deposit amount of KRW 20 million and the defendant's store.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.28 2017가단49998

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.25 2017가단204110

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.05.29 2014가단5106

-서울남부지방법원 2016.04.05 2015가단66469

-인천지방법원 2018.05.31 2017가단211527